Danny, just one more comment. So named vendor's support can be the worst case when there are no practical ways to deploy and it is absolutely not clear - should we follow this hierarchical model - I think it is the key point as we pushed ourselves by inertia to this way of thinking.
Imho - it is way to nowhere in such form We need more flexible, distributed architecture behind - no matter - which interests will be lobbied as we have got already. On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Danny McPherson wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Alex Band wrote: > >> All in all, RPKI has really good traction and with native router support in >> Cisco, Juniper and Quagga, this is only getting better. > > We should be more careful with statements such as this, they're conflating > important things that add to the confusion in this area. > > None of these implementations support "RPKI" today. What they support is a > new protocol for onboarding routing policy data (some call this a [VRP], > essentially prefix,origin bindings) into soft state in a router. > > -danny > > [VRP] https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/74-120417.sidr-origin.pdf >
